From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Titanium is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Good topic star Titanium is part of the Group 4 elements series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 16, 2004.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
December 15, 2003 Featured article candidate Promoted
January 2, 2007 Featured article review Kept
March 30, 2011 Good topic candidate Promoted
Current status: Featured article
WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
WikiProject Elements (Rated FA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is supported by WikiProject Elements, which gives a central approach to the chemical elements and their isotopes on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing this article, or visit the project page for more details.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5 (Rated FA-class)
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Note icon
This article is within of subsequent release version of Natural sciences.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.


  • Titanium - J Gambogi - Mining Engineering(Colorado)(USA), 1992 [1]
  • Titanium Applications--a Critical Review Kramer, K-H Sixth World Conference on Titanium. I; Cannes; France; 6-9 June 1988. pp. 521-529. 1988
  • The Production of Titanium, Zirconium and Hafnium Minkler, W W; Baroch, E F Metallurgical Treatises; Beijing; China; 13-22 Nov. 1981. pp. 171-189. 1981
  • Titanium Sponge by Kroll Process Rao, C S Minerals and Metals Review. Vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 25-26. Jan. 1991
  • ESR for Titanium: Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow - BE Paton, BI Medovar, MG Benz, RH Nafziger, LB … - … of 9th World Conference on Titanium, St. Petersburg, Russia …, 1999 [2]

Boyer R. R. (1995). "Titanium for aerospace: Rationale and applications". Advanced Performance Materials. 2 (4): 349–368. doi:10.1007/BF00705316. 

alloying with aluminum and "aircraft grade"[edit]

Removed statement by Highlandspring in this regard - sorry. Alloying titanium with other elemets is adequately covered in other sections; no need to get so specific, otherwise the article will never end if we discuss properties of all alloys. There are a number of alloys used in aircraft (6-6-2, 6-2-4-2, 6-2-4-6, 8-1-1, the list goes on); 6-4, or more properly 6AL-4V (Grade 5 per ASTM industrial specification) is not the only one. Unfortunately, the moniker "aircraft grade" is loose marketing verbiage used by ring and jewelry makers to impress the public. It is not used in the metallurgical / engineering community and does not belong in reference works.

6AL-4V may deserve special mention only insofar as it is, by a large margin, the most widely used alloy in aircraft production; it is consequently more readily available for non-aircraft applications.


While you will save weight cumulatively by using titanium fasteners, exhaust, etc. it is easy to sometimes lose sight of the trees for the forest... I think it is important to emphasize that often saving weight with individual components can have interesting results. With automotive applications, using Ti for valvetrain components for instance, does much more than shave a few pounds off an automobile. Valves have a tendency to float with increasing rpms despite the springs, and the primary reason for Ti as a valve is to reduce the inertia you get with a steel valve. Substituting Ti for steel can gain enough advantage to justify the expense beyond the couple of pounds you save...

Many fixes in grammar[edit]

@Materialscientist: What the heck is "lower stiffness"?? Lesser numbers are not "lower"... except for children who measure themselves against a door post. Notice the formal names of the < and > operators do not use the "low" and "high" vernacular. Please consider each of the fixes in your reversion and expand on your objections. Grammar's Li'l Helper Discourse 01:01, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

-- See the article on Titanium Alloy, the Young's modulus values mentioned there are higher for Ti alloys than for Al alloys, so the statement in this article regarding "lower stiffness" is definitely wrong, please correct and specify!

Allowing for the strength/weight and density of titanium, a structure with the same strength, made of titanium is less stiff than the same structure made of carbon fibre or aluminium alloys, assuming these structures are each optimally designed for the material.GliderMaven (talk) 17:04, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
(I only see this now, not with the Edit Request below). GliderMaven, I think this is not fully correct. Stiffness is not defined or compared wrt 'same strength'. It should be defined and compared for a specific geometry of the material body, and for the specific pressure (-direction for example). For example, stiffness is mesured for an I-beam (with dimensions: ...), and in longuitudinal direction. Then one can take a same-geometry I-beam of a different material, and measure stiffness for that same force direction. The weight is not involved. -DePiep (talk) 18:48, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2017[edit]

Please remove 'Titanium alloys have less stiffness than many other structural materials such as aluminium alloys and carbon fiber.'. Stiffness is not a material property. In any case, the stiffness of a titanium component will be greater than an aluminium component of the same geometry. Mark.a.todd (talk) 14:04, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done because first remark here is correct. Note that it might be re-added when saying like "Comparing same-geometry bodies, stiffness of titanium alloys is ..." BTW, is there an industry standard to compare stiffnesses? Like is done with "Speed of sound (thin rod)"? The second part, the actual statement, needs verification before being re-added. -DePiep (talk) 15:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
I reverted this new phrasing, which was not discussed here btw. It was wrong again. As the OP correctly says, stiffness is not a material property (not defined by the material itself). Stiffness is defined for a specific geometry of that material, and then in a certain degree of freedom (e.g. pressure direction). So the new phrase 'weight for weight' is wrong too. Next, the new sentence writes 'construction materials', which is an unnecessary, distracting and incorrect addition. It can be said about every material, no restriction to construction required. Last, the statement with the comparision should be sourced as the OP rightly sort of points to. -DePiep (talk) 18:17, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
You are incorrect. If I make a structure out of rubber, and another structure out of aluminium, with enough rubber, then the two will have the same ultimate strength. But the rubber structure will not remotely be as stiff. That's a material property.
Titanium versus aluminium, has similar strength/weight at room temperature, and titanium is much stronger at higher temperatures, but titanium, weight for weight, is significantly less stiff than aluminium, weight for weight. Also, steel is much less stiff than aluminium, for the same strength component (that's why aluminium car bodies are far less often written off in crashes, a steel body is often distorted far from the impact point, whereas the far greater stiffness of aluminium protects the structure).
This was potentially going to be an issue for the Space Shuttle, but in the end they chose aluminium for cost reasons. It's also a subtle reason in other aerospace applications why aluminium still enjoys such extensive use, the stiffness/strength ratio is very favourable, which improves aeroelastic issues like wing flexing.GliderMaven (talk) 23:17, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
This may all be true, but has nothing to do with stiffness. Stiffness is determined by material and geometry. When you compare stiffnesses, you take two I-beams of the same dimensions and with the different materials. -DePiep (talk) 23:24, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
No, really not; beams are virtually always chosen to hold up a particular load with a designed degree of bending, with beams failure is usually by buckling. The relationship between bending and material properties and bending is discussed at: Specific_modulus#Specific_stiffness_in_buckling_and_bending. Note the second and third order stiffnesses are much greater for aluminium alloys than titanium alloys. That's partly why aluminium alloys see such enormous usage in aerospace; titanium is only used where you have no choice (high temperature) and it's best used for tensile applications, it's not just that titanium is harder to work with.GliderMaven (talk) 23:41, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
When talking stiffness, ultimate strength is not relevant. Quite the opposite: stiffness is the elastic deformation, plasticity is the non-elastic deformation, and buckling (breaking) is the desintegration deformment of materials. (In your link, bending and buckling are stiffness-driven the 'driven' is incorrect). When describing stiffness of a material, it is not helpful (wrong and misleading even) to describe the design process wrt strength. That is mixing up independent measurements. In this description, there is no "[design] goal", except for making correct comparisions. (You are complicating matters into off-topicness by trying to say: 'to reach similar stiffness, one has to add more material/weight' -- to a fixed geometry???). -DePiep (talk) 08:00, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2017[edit]

To add this photo in the consumer products section to show a common daily use object made of titanium. No text to be added.

Artisan pocket comb crafted from titanium alloy.

Math Wiz (talk) 17:39, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose It's just a comb. Commonly and cheaply made of aluminium, why would a titanium or brass one be relevant, other than to promote your images? Are you still using your Tlstrom (talk · contribs) account?
If we need domestic Ti images, use a bike frame, or something that has a specific reason to use titanium, not just fashion. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:30, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 19:10, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 July 2017[edit]

Please change the electron shell configuration to 2, 8, 8, 4; which is consistent with the Periodic Table of the Elements. Otraincom (talk) 03:45, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Electrons go into 3d before 4p Parcly Taxel 04:35, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Deleted omega phase mention[edit]

An omega phase in titanium or its alloys is not an inherent or naturally occurring property, as are the alpha and beta phases: it is only induced by shock-loading. Pzzp (talk) 03:54, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Titanium. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:34, 21 September 2017 (UTC)